Masturbation: a Silent Sexual Practice
Carolien Saathof
10885927
caroliensaathof@gmail.com
Master in Sociology, track Gender, Sexuality in Society
Supervisors: dr. M.L. Janssen and dr. D. Weenink
Graduate School of Social Sciences – University of Amsterdam
Thesis
30-06-2016
24.971 words
Preface
This thesis would not have been possible without the help of my respondents. I want to thank the respondents who have filled in the survey of the research project Let’s Talk About Sex. I want to thank the respondents who have participated in the interviews specifically for their openness about my (sometimes) uncomfortable questions. I want to thank the research team of Let’s Talk About Sex for all their insight and expertise that greatly assisted the research. I wish to thank dr. Stephanie Steinmetz for helping me with the quantitative data, dr. Don Weenink for his support and advice, and in particular dr. Marie-Louise Janssen for her patience, advice, insights, and support. I want to thank my parents for always believing in me and giving me the opportunity to do a masters at the University of Amsterdam. Many thanks to my brother, my friends and fellow students who have read my proposals, first, second, and 16th drafts, for your feedback and your support. Last but not least, thanks to my soon-to-be husband Robin for all his patience, pride, love, and never ending support.
Index Chapter 1: Introduction... 6 Chapter 2: Methodology ... 9 2.1 Introduction ... 9 2.2 Research group ... 9 2.3 Qualitative approach... 10 2.4 Quantitative approach... 13
Chapter 3: Theoretical framework ... 15
3.1 Introduction ... 15
3.2 Sexual script theory ... 15
3.3 Christian beliefs ... 17
3.4 Medical ideas ... 17
3.5 Theory of sexuality by Freud ... 18
3.6 Sexual revolution ... 19
3.7 The civilisation process ... 20
3.8 Gender ... 22
3.9 Feelings of shame and guilt ... 23
Chapter 4: Practices of masturbation... 24
4.1 Introduction ... 24 4.2 Start of masturbation ... 24 4.3 Masturbation frequency ... 25 4.4 Gender ... 27 4.5 Having a relationship... 28 4.6 Place of masturbation ... 28
4.7 Masturbation as part of partnered sex ... 29
4.8 Motives for masturbation ... 30
4.9 Masturbation as a preference ... 32
Chapter 5: Social ideas on masturbation ... 34
5.1 Introduction ... 34
5.3 Masturbation as a sexual act ... 36
5.4 Gender ... 37
5.5 Sexual education... 39
5.6 Talking about masturbation ... 40
Chapter 6: Feelings of shame and guilt ... 42
6.1 Introduction ... 42 6.2 Shame ... 42 6.3 Guilt ... 45 6.4 Consequences of shame... 47 6.5 Self-constraint... 48 6.6 Gender ... 50 6.7 Positive feelings... 51
Chapter 7: Sexual autonomy ... 52
7.1 Introduction ... 52 7.2 Choice to masturbate ... 52 7.3 Confidence... 52 7.4 Gender ... 53 7.5 Control ... 55 7.6 Script... 56 Chapter 8: Discussion ... 59 8.1 Introduction ... 59 8.2 Script... 59 8.3 Traditional ideas ... 60 8.3 Practices... 60
8.4 Shame and guilt ... 62
8.5 Male sexual script ... 63
8.6 Female sexual script ... 64
8.7 Limitations qualitative research ... 66
8.8 Limitations quantitative research ... 67
Appendix 1: Interview guide ... 81 Appendix 2: Summary... 85
Chapter 1: Introduction
Within Western societies, masturbation has been perceived in many different ways through different times. Although masturbation is a form of sexual conduct that within Western society “has been most harshly treated throughout the centuries by society, religion, and the field of medicine” (Davidson and Darling, 1993: 291), research has indicated that
masturbation is a widespread phenomenon that happens in almost every culture or society (Kaestle and Allen, 2011: 984). The biologist Kinsey has shown us that masturbation is a common sexual practice in almost all men and women in America by conducting a study in the 1950’s where he found that 96% of the males and 63% of the females of a college educated sample (had) masturbated in their lifetime (Kinsey, Pomeroy and Martin, 1948; Kinsey, Pomeroy, Martin and Gebhard, 1953). In Western societies today, masturbation is discussed on television, in magazines and on the Internet. The United States even celebrates International Masturbation Month in May since 1995, which is sponsored by a commercial organization that produces and sells sex toys.1 However, people who masturbate are mostly portrayed as ‘pathetic’, not practicing a ‘real’ sexual experience, as having ‘low morals’ and as giving into animalistic urges, for instance in popular films such as American Pie.2 These are all social ideas that have been around for decades (Langston, 1975), which makes the contemporary idea of masturbation as an appropriate form of sexual behaviour questionable.
The subject of this research is to study contemporary ideas on masturbation in Amsterdam, in order to see how highly educated students from a university in Amsterdam perceive masturbation in relation to their ideas, feelings and practices.
The key concept of this thesis is masturbation. Masturbation will be defined by using the term of the sociologist Gagnon (1977), namely: “self-induced sexual pleasure without another person being actively involved physically” or “autoeroticism” (1977: 141). It’s questionable if masturbation today is viewed as fully acceptable and appropriate sexual behaviour among highly educated students. Rather, masturbatio n may be perceived as less or more appropriate according to what, who, where, when, and why, conforming to the facets of a sexual script (Gagnon, 1973; 1977; 1990; Simon and Gagnon, 1986).
For my research, I have chosen students of the University of Applied Sciences (HvA), the University of Amsterdam (UvA) and the Free University (VU), all universities in
1 Good Vibrations: http://www.goodvibes.com/content.jhtml?id=masturbation -month-facts
2 Scene of the film ‘American Pie’ on masturbation with an apple pie: https://youtu.be/NCAOKR1jpp0
Amsterdam. By questioning students’ beliefs, norms, values and behaviour, I have challenged students’ contemporary ideas on masturbation and asked respondents to reflect upon these ideas. I want to know what kind of meaning students give to their own sexual behaviour.
With girlfriends it’s quite easy to talk about [partnered] sex and the stuff you do, for example with a guy, or where you’ve had [partnered] sex, and so on. But with masturbation, that’s something that we never talk about, or at least that’s my experience. It’s not that it’s taboo, but it’s just that no one talks about it (Jill, 2016: 1).
Jill’s quote represents that masturbation is a silenced topic and shows that it’s not necessarily a taboo, although the lack of talking about it underlines that this form of sexual behaviour is a subject of taboo. Highly educated students have my interest because several scholars have argued that a high education is associated with more liberal sexual attitudes (Abramson, 1973; Fischtein, Herold and Desmarais, 2007; Gagnon, 1985; Gerressu, Mercer, Graham, Wellings and Johnson, 2007; Laumann and Gagnon, 1995; Peplau, 2003, Straver, 1969). Moreover, the Netherlands is seen as a front runner when it comes to expressing free sexuality (Hekma, 2009), because of its role in the sexual revolution during the 1960’s. Young people in particular, such as students, advocated for the right to express sexual freedom and choice (Hekma and Duyvendak, 2011: 411-412). Additionally, I have chosen schools in Amsterdam because Amsterdam is perceived as a liberal city regarding sexual norms. It was Amsterdam who hosted the first ‘naked’ shows and the famous Red Light District still defines Amsterdam as a city of sexual freedom (Hekma, 1990; 2013). I wish to establish whether young, Dutch, highly educated university students in Amsterdam have liberal ideas concerning the sexual act of masturbation.
My aim of this thesis is to establish whether or not masturbation today is perceived as an appropriate and accepted form of sexual behaviour among highly educated students in Amsterdam. There might be differences or even discrepancies between ideas and practices of male and female students, therefore I want to conduct my research on ideas on masturbation, practices of masturbation and feelings of shame and guilt concerning masturbation. My research question is: How do male and female students in Amsterdam practice and perceive
the sexual act of masturbation?
The first chapter focuses on practices of masturbation. Masturbation practices might only be appropriate under particular circumstances and relate to who, why, when, where and what. The practices of masturbation are set out into several sub questions:
2. When do students masturbate in daily life? 3. Where do students masturbate in daily life? 4. What are students’ motives for masturbating?
5. Does the frequency of masturbation change because of the relationship status of the student?
The second chapter focuses on social norms and ideas on masturbation. The ideas on masturbation are also described into sub questions:
1. Do students perceive masturbation as appropriate sexual behaviour? 2. When is masturbation considered to be inappropriate sexual behaviour? 3. Do ideas about gender-appropriate sexual behaviour influence ideas on
masturbation?
4. In what manner do students talk about masturbation with others?
The third chapter refers to if and when students experience feelings of shame and guilt concerning masturbation. My sub questions for this section are:
1. When do feelings of shame occur regarding masturbation practices? 2. When do feelings of guilt occur regarding masturbation practices?
The final chapter relates to sexual autonomy and discusses how masturbation influences the sexual autonomy of the students. My sub questions for this section are:
1. Is masturbation an important sexual practice for students? 2. How do students choose to engage in masturbation practices? 3. How does masturbation relate to students’ other sexual behaviours?
Chapter 2: Methodology
2.1 Introduction
I have conducted a mixed methods approach in my research. The purpose of this study is to explore the practices on and ideas of masturbation of highly educated students in Amsterdam. The qualitative part is more in-depth and tries to understand how respondents practice and perceive masturbation. The quantitative part will test general ideas, focuses on the practices of masturbation and how masturbation is perceived on a wider scale of male and female students (Bryman, 2012). I believe that the approach of combining two methods can complement and amplify each other (Bryman, 2012). The research question of this thesis is explorative, therefore my thesis entails mostly qualitative research results, with an additional part of quantitative data.
Through qualitative research an in-depth description of the phenomenon will be developed, next to finding key categories. Through quantitative research I’ll compare research results of the qualitative study. The advantage of a mixed methods study is the opportunity to enhance research results by comparing and confirming qualitative data with quantitative data (Bryman, 2012: 633-634).
2.2 Research group
The research group consists of students in Amsterdam of the University of Applied Sciences (HvA), the University of Amsterdam (UvA) and the Free University (VU). I have chosen this research group because several scholars have argued that highly educated college students have liberal sexual attitudes and ideas (Abramson, 1973; Fischtein et al, 2007; Gagnon, 1985; Gerressu et al, 2007; Laumann and Gagnon, 1995; Peplau, 2003, Straver, 1969).
Furthermore, the sexual revolution in the 1960’s and 1970’s in the Netherlands has induced change in perceptions on sexual behaviour (Hekma, 1994; Schnabel, 1973). During this time, changes in “beliefs [on sexuality emerged] that led to greater freedom and extended agency for individuals” (Hekma and Giami, 2014: 2). By advocating sexual freedom for all, including women, the sexual revolution has made masturbation a form of liberation, among many more sexual varieties. Masturbation became a form of expressing sexual feelings and autonomy, instead of being viewed as egoistic, narcissistic, immature, and damaging
relationships (Davidson and Moore, 1994; Gagnon, 1977; Laqueur, 2003). The generation raised by people that have experienced the sexual revolution might have a different view on sexuality compared to their parents or grandparents. Furthermore, individuals that have been
more highly educated are more open to and gain more knowledge about sexual diversities and preferences. My expectation is that liberal sexual ideas of highly educated students relate to not feeling ashamed of masturbation, and instead perceive it as normal and common sexual behaviour. I want to explore the extent of ideas of students concerning the topic of
masturbation. Young people are associated with a progressive attitude when it comes to exploring sexuality (Horne and Zimmer-Gembeck, 2005; Straver, 1969). Besides, psychologists Hogarth and Ingham (2009) argue that masturbation is the most significant source of pleasure for young people. Therefore, I want to find out how a young, sexually progressive, and highly educated group of students perceives and practices masturbation. Additionally, I want to establish differences concerning gender in masturbation ideas and practices, therefore I have decided to study both male and female students.
2.3 Qualitative approach
The main priority of this thesis is qualitative with an added quantitative component, which indicates that I will follow a “sequential exploratory strategy” in my research (Creswell, 2003: 215; Bryman, 2012: 632). This strategy is characterised by a primary phase of collecting and analysing interviews, which will be followed by a secondary phase of collecting and
analysing survey data. The results of the interviews are the central and main part of this thesis, whereas the results of the survey will provide additional, descriptive information on a greater scale. The main focus of this strategy is to explore the social phenomenon of masturbation, and by using interviews, I try to grasp the subjective meanings, motives and practices of masturbation.
The sampling approach I have used for my interviews has the form of a convenience sample, in which I have used certain individual contacts in order to get more contacts (Bryman, 2012: 202). By using this kind of sampling approach, I got in touch with most of my respondents through fellow students or through initial respondents who asked other students to participate as well. I have eventually interviewed seven male students and seven female students. Students determined where the interview took place, either at students’ dorms or at the University of Amsterdam, where I booked a room in order to have some privacy. All students were Dutch, in their early or late twenties, and identified as
Name (pseudonym) Gender Age Relationship status
Tim Male 26 In a relationship
Kevin Male 29 Single
Sophie Female 26 In a relationship
Jeffrey Male 24 In a relationship
Nicole Female 24 Single
Emily Female 23 In a relationship
Walter Male 31 In a relationship
Lisa Female 23 Single
Emma Female 24 Single
Julian Male 27 Single
Lucas Male 22 In a relationship
Tess Female 25 Single
Jill Female 24 In a relationship
Simon Male 25 Single
Table 1. An overview of the respondents’ characteristics that have participated in the interviews.
The interviews I’ve conducted are semi-structured, which entails that I have created a topic list with focused questions to guide the interview. Whilst conducting the interview, I have given the respondents the opportunity to address certain questions or subjects that came up during the interview. Thus, the interview has a flexible and open form (Bryman, 2012: 471). The interview questions related to the topics of my research, namely it revolved around the practices of masturbation, the ideas on masturbation, the feelings regarding masturbation and the role of masturbation on sexual autonomy of students. The interview questions have been tested on a friend after the questions were created. The duration of an interview has been approximately 45 minutes to one hour. Every interview has been in Dutch, except one that was in English, it has been recorded with my own telephone and then transferred to my computer. I have prefaced every interview by asking the respondent if I could record the interview and additionally explained that the interview is anonymous by using pseudonyms. The only social demographics I used were students’ gender, age, sexual orientation,
interview I explained how the interview was constructed, to give respondents an idea of what they could expect. Additionally, I explained that the questions were of a personal nature and asked respondents to notify me whenever they felt uncomfortable or unwilling to answer a question, so I could consider a respondent’s wellbeing during the interview. However, none of the respondents indicated that they felt unwilling or uncomfortable to answer any of the questions. In order to determine respondent’s feelings during the interview, I asked how they felt at the beginning and at the end of each interview.
While collecting my data, I simultaneously transcribed the interviews. I decided to transcribe and collect data at the same time, because it gave me the chance to listen back to and reflect on my interview skills and interview questions. By reflecting on each interview, I have made some changes to my interview guide. After the fourth interview I realised that it was important to me to explicitly ask about a person’s sexual education. All of the
respondents so far mentioned it in response to the question: how did you learn about masturbation/what was your first experience with masturbation? I thought it was important because it may give me an answer to why masturbation was viewed as something awkward or shameful. I added two questions on sexual education, namely: Did you receive sexual
education? From whom and when? and Did your sexual education include masturbation? In what way? I also decided to add another question to the question form, namely: Do you have to be alone in order to masturbate? I realised I already asked this question, therefore I find it
important to include it within the question format.
My transcriptions of the interviews consist solely of the words and terms used by the respondents. Thirteen of the fourteen interviews were in Dutch, therefore I have transcribed them in Dutch. I have translated the excerpts from the interviews that I have used in my results section into English. However, in order to maintain readability of the transcriptions, I have not transcribed the ‘uhms’ of the respondents, or transcribed a sentence in a different order due to grammar or correct word order.
By using the qualitative analysis program Atlas.ti I have done a content analysis to analyse the interviews. Content analysis refers to a method of analysing data by categorising what respondents say about the research topic. During the study I have made comparisons between theory and concepts by going back and forth from data to theory. In this way, codes within each category are related to each other and are different from the codes in other categories. The result is that there are different themes that emerge from the data (Tashakkori and Teddlie, 2003: 705). This form of content analysis focuses on what is being said by the respondents in the interviews. Within Atlas.ti I have made group codes that are linked to the
interview guide as well as to the chapter of my results section. Every code group had several codes that related to the group code. The content of these code groups are subdivided into four chapter results of my thesis: (1) practices of masturbation; (2) ideas on masturbation; (3) feelings of shame and/or guilt, and (4) sexual autonomy.
2.4 Quantitative approach
In order to gain statistical data, I have co-designed a survey within the context of the research project Let’s Talk About Sex.3 This research is conducted by a team from the University of Amsterdam from the department of Sociology, which consists of two lecturers and five research students. This research focuses on the sexual diversity of students in Amsterdam by asking about practices, ideas, fantasies and desires, and in particular on ideas and attitudes on sex work, the prevalence of sex work and the motives on sex work of students.
In order to come up with the questions, I have used an existing scale on questions about attitudes toward masturbation by Abramson and Mosher (1975). I have created the questions concerning practices and feelings of masturbation myself. These questions are integrated in the survey that is conducted by the research team of the Let’s talk about Sex study. The survey questions are in the form of a self-completion questionnaire on an online survey website called Survey Monkey.4 This means that respondents will answer the questions by completing the questionnaire themselves and anonymously, in order to avoid socially desirable answers of respondents (Bryman, 2012: 232). The questions are variously framed: closed, open, positive or negative and some with a horizontal format on a Likert scale from 1 to 5, where 1 is either totally not agree or never and 5 is totally agree or very often (Bryman, 2012: 238-239, 258). The duration of the survey was approximately 15-20 minutes.
The survey has been distributed among students of the HvA, the UvA and the VU through study associations, social media such as Twitter and Facebook, by using television screens in the University of Amsterdam and through various newsletters. The survey has been online from middle April until the end of June 2016. Students who have participated in the interviews also have done the survey, either after or before the interview. Regarding my thesis topic, the survey covers questions about the practices of masturbation, attitudes on
masturbation and feelings concerning masturbation of students in Amsterdam. In consultation with my supervisor, I have decided to only use three questions of the survey due to absence of
3 See the website for more information on the research project Let’s Talk About Sex: www.researchletstalk.com 4 See the website for more information about Survey Monk ey: https://nl.surveymonkey.com/
time. I wanted to show the descriptives of some research results in order to compare them to the research results of the interviews.
The survey questions are analysed through the statistical program Stata. I ‘ve used the descriptives of several questions by looking at the prevalence and analysed the results by looking at relations between variables (Tashakkori and Teddlie, 2003: 254-255). My topics of interest were the differences between male and female students in masturbation frequency and to what extent male and female students feel shame or guilt concerning masturbation. The variable I have used is gender. The data has been downloaded and recoded from the online survey website Survey Monkey by Stephanie Steinmetz, one of the lecturers of the research project, who has helped me to analyse the data. The survey is available until the end of June, but due to the deadline of this thesis at the end of June, a temporary record of data has been used for this thesis. The data set had a total number of 632 respondents at the moment of analysis. However, because students were able to skip questions when the survey was just online, each question shows a different number of respondents.
In order to analyse the descriptives I have used the statistical program Stata to make crosstabs and Excel to generate the data into bar graphs. Within the variable gender there were seven deviant cases; five identified as ‘other’ and two identified as ‘transgender’ next to the categories male and female. This thesis doesn’t focus on transgenders or other categories of gender, therefore I have decided to remove these cases from this particular data set and recode the variable gender into gender2 by using (1=1 men) and (2=2 women) and
(else=missing), which brings the data set on a number of 625 respondents. I have made three crosstabs using percentages of the results of the variable gender2 crossed with three survey questions, namely: (1) On average, how frequently do you masturbate in the last 12 months? which had the answer categories: daily, more than three times a week, one to two times a
week, less than once a week, less than once a month and once; (2) Have you ever felt ashamed of your masturbation practices?; and (3) Have you ever felt guilty of your masturbation practices? which both had the answer categories never, rarely, sometimes, often, and always.
The survey results are converted into bar charts and integrated within the central qualitative research results in chapter four on masturbation practices and chapter six on feelings of shame or guilt concerning masturbation, in order to further test social ideas and practices of masturbation among students on a larger scale. Additionally, I have studied whether or not there are any discrepancies or similarities by analysing the survey data compared to the interview data.
Chapter 3: Theoretical framework
3.1 Introduction
Human sexual behaviour has been viewed in different ways. At first, I want to explain two approaches to sexuality, an essentialist approach and a constructionist approach. The essentialist view perceives sexuality as something that’s ‘innate’ or ‘natural’, whereas the constructionist view perceives sexuality as being socially constructed. Essentialism argues that sexuality resides with the individual and is biologically determined by personality traits and hormones (DeLamater and Hyde, 1998: 13). For instance, women are assumed to be naturally (sexually) passive and receptive, whereas men are assumed to be more naturally active or assertive (Gagnon, 1977: 18). Essentialism is an approach often adopted by evolutionary theorists, biologists, and psychologists.
Social constructionism however, explains sexuality as a phenomenon that’s “external to the individual, defined by social understandings and discourse” (DeLamater and Hyde, 1998: 13). The meaning of sexual behaviour, sexual desire, and sexual expression determines social norms and values, discourses, and language. According to social constructionists, this also holds for gender, which is constructed within interactions between people (DeLamater and Hyde, 1998: 13-16). Sexuality is often seen as something that’s biologically different in origin, for instance by presuming that men have a higher sex drive than women (Baumeister, Catanese and Vohs, 2001), which implies that men act more on sexual feelings and thus masturbate more than women. However, this thesis will follow a constructionist approach by establishing what’s more or less appropriate sexual behaviour through indicating what meaning students give to sexual feelings and behaviours. As is stated by the psychologists Clark and Wiederman: “sexual appropriate behaviour is created by culture” (2000: 133), therefore social ideas on sexual behaviour such as masturbation, are socially constructed.
3.2 Sexual script theory
I want to use the sociological approach of ‘script theory’ that falls within the larger theoretical framework of dramaturgical theories. Dramaturgical theories are theories that “emphasize that individuals make dramatic presentations and engage in strategic action directed by a cultural script” (Turner and Stets, 2006: 26). This entails that actions of individuals are guided by a script of norms, rules, social expectations and ‘feeling and display rules’, even when they’re alone.
Drawing from this large theoretical framework, I want to use script theory in analysing my data. Script theory comprehends the belief that every individual has internalised certain cultural scripts that guide our actions. I will focus on a subscript namely the sexual script, described by sociologists Simon and Gagnon (1986) and Gagnon (1973; 1977; 1990). There are five assumptions that form the basis of sexual script theory. Gagnon (1990) describes them as:
(a) that sexual conduct is entirely historically and culturally determined , (b) that the meaning of sexual conduct does reside in a reading of the bodily activity of individuals, (c) that sexual science is historically and culturally determined in equal measure, (d) that sexuality is acquired,
maintained, and unlearned in all of its aspects and is organized by social structure and culture, and (e) that gender and sexuality are both learned forms of conduct and linked differently in different cultures (Gagnon, 1990: 5-6).
A sexual script is defined as a cognitive scheme for guiding and organising sexual action and expression. It’s summarised by Gagnon as: “appropriate patterns of reproductive, gender and sexual conduct [that] are all products of specific cultures and all can be viewed as examples of socially scripted conduct” (1990: 5). In line with Clark and Wiederman (2000), Gagnon (1990) describes how all sexual conduct is created by culture, thus, although masturbation is presumed to be solitary, it’s a complete social form of behaviour (1990: 4, 12).
Sexual script theory tells us the who, when, what, where and why of our sexual behaviour. ‘Who’ tells us who or with whom one does sexual activities. ‘When’ tells us the appropriate time (such as private times or at night) for sexual acts. ‘What’ tells us what kind of sexual acts are considered to be appropriate. ‘Where’ gives us information about the place of sexual acts, such as behind closed doors or in your own living environment. Lastly, ‘why’ gives meaning to the motive behind sexual acts (Gagnon, 1977: 5-9). These scripts are learned and cultural forms of behaviour, and therefore sexual behaviour is “elicited by context rather than driven by internal states” (Gagnon, 1990: 6). The practice of masturbation and ideas on masturbation might have the form of a sexual script, which additionally can differ between male and female students.
According to Gagnon (1990), the sexual script exists on different levels, namely the cultural, interpsychic and the intrapsychic level. The cultural level consists of norms and ideas on what kind of sexual behaviour are appropriate. The intrapsychic level contains erotic desires and feelings that are organised in schemes. Erotic desires are part of mental schemes that are coordinated into a social script. Within the interpsychic level, the social script
connects cultural meaning and social interaction and guides social interactions between individuals (Gagnon, 1990: 7-10). When it comes to sexuality, these scripts embody what culture treats as sexuality and sexual conduct (Laumann and Gagnon, 1995: 188), next to designating what is appropriate and ‘normal’ sexual conduct, and under what particular circumstances. Societies tend to categorise diverse sexual behaviour either as appropriate, acceptable, and normal or as abnormal, unacceptable, and deviant (Seidman, 2003). Scripts concerning the normality and appropriateness of masturbation have been differently perceived according to prevailing norms and values through different times in society. I will now look at the norms and values on sexuality through Christian beliefs and medical ideas.
3.3 Christian beliefs
Until the 19th Century, sexuality had been infused by sexual values within Christian morality. Sexual acts were supposed to be performed with the aim of reproduction and not because of sexual pleasure. Therefore, every sexual act that could not result in procreation, was seen as unnatural and as a threat to “the survival of human race” (Patton, 1985: 133).
The Bible describes how Onan wastes his sperm on the ground instead of giving it to a woman. As a consequence, God kills Onan for performing this sinful and immoral act
(Genesis 38: 9-10). Masturbation is thus also referred to as onanism. This tale goes to show that masturbation was seen as highly immoral, because it meant ‘wasting’ your sperm instead of using it in a reproductive manner (Gagnon, 1977; 1985; Laqueur, 2003). Giving in to sexual impulses such as masturbation was seen as weak and animalistic, whereas a respectable, religious and civilized man would be strong enough to resist such urges and conform to Christian values, such as sexual restraint and chastity. Constraining such sexual urges as masturbation, was seen as a manner of mind over body: the heavenly soul versus the sinful body (Davidson and Moore, 1994). Female masturbation was getting less attention because women were considered to be asexual or passive beings within Christian beliefs (Hogarth and Ingham, 2009).
3.4 Medical ideas
Moving from the 18th Century into the 19th Century, masturbation was not only seen as highly immoral, but also seen as the cause of various physical and mental diseases that could not be otherwise explained (Davidson and Moore, 1994; Fahs and Frank, 2014; Gagnon, 1977; Hodges, 2005; Laqueur, 2003; Levin, 2007; Lipsith, McCann and Goldmeier, 2003; Patton,
1985; 1986; Slosarz, 1992). The first physician to publish on masturbation causing mental and physical diseases, was Samuel Tissot, who lived until the end of the 18th Century (Patton, 1985: 141). His book Onania (1767) is seen as the starting point for several medical writings on the dangers of masturbation. The main argument that Tissot (1767) tried to make was that masturbation leads to insanity, because for every ounce of semen, you additionally lose 40 ounces of blood which consequently damaged the nervous system (Tissot, 1767; Hodges, 2005; Levin, 2007; Patton, 1985). Several other medical practitioners of that time picked up on this view (Hodges, 2005, Patton, 1985; 1986).
The belief that masturbation caused insanity has most likely been the dominant belief from 1758 until 1885. Around that time, medical studies started to explain several
‘mysterious’ diseases due to the discovery of bacteria. Consequently, physicians and medical practitioners adopted another view in the years 1885 until 1940 which consisted of the belief of masturbation causing neurosis instead of insanity (Patton, 1986: 291-292).
3.5 Theory of sexuality by Freud
The ideas of the psychologist Freud greatly influenced beliefs of masturbation in the 19th and the 20th Century. According to Freud, masturbation caused neurosis and neurasthenia, since it was observed as a frequent sexual practice among psychiatric patients. However, it also was part of a particular phase in life in order to develop “proper psychosexual” behaviour (Patton, 1986: 292). Freud argued that, in order to understand perverse sexual behaviour, one first needs to understand normal sexual behaviour (Freud, 2005: 299). This argument led Freud to investigating and grasping human sexuality from a very young age. Freud was the first to ever dispute that children were sexual beings that have sexual desires and sexual conduct. Even today, this idea is still seen as highly controversial.
According to Freud’s theory, sexual perversions originated within the sexuality of a child (Freud, 2005: 302-303). Repression of memories or experiences that occurred in
childhood will lead to adult sexual dysfunctions or perversions. Every child goes through five stages regarding their sexuality: oral, anal, phallic, latent and genital. In the final genital stage, boys have a desire to become sexually active and “acting insertive”, whereas girls move their clitoral sensitivity or orgasms, that conforms to infantilism, to vaginal sensitivity or orgasms in order to conform to adulthood and therefore become “active for being inserted” (Freud, 1905; Freud, 2005; Groneman, 1994; Lavie-Ajayi & Joffe, 2009; Koedt, 1970).
To Freud, the final stage marked the turning point towards ‘normal’ adult sexuality. All other forms of sexual behaviour were childlike, primitive and perverse. This belief is due
to the fact that Freud considered procreation as the function of sexuality and therefore vaginal intercourse, hence penis-in-vagina sex, as the ‘normal form’ of adult sexuality (Freud, 2005: 320). In order to develop ‘normal’ sexuality, Freud states that autoeroticism needs to
disappear by replacing the object one liked to touch or suck on one’s own body by objects on another one’s body, and by replacing the different objects with one particular object (Freud, 2005: 321). It seems to me as if Freud is referring to substituting several desires into only one desire, namely the desire for another person’s vagina or penis.
Freud determines that perversions have in common that they’re not directed towards reproduction. Thus, everything that’s aimed towards lust instead of procreation is identified as perverse. Freud claims that it’s ‘normal’ for the child to have perversions, since the child is not yet aware of the function of sexuality as procreation. However, if adult sexual behaviour aims towards desires instead of directing towards procreation, it means that these behaviours have extracted themselves from the function of sexuality and are therefore defined as perversions (Freud, 2005: 308). Perversions such as masturbation, became addressed as: “an unnatural substitute for normal adult sexuality and sexual pleasure” (Laqueur, 2003: 380).
Masturbation practices were part of a stage in childhood within sexual development that “normal people transcend through the processes of civilization” (Laqueur, 2003: 22). In determining masturbation as growing into ‘adult sexuality’, masturbation is perceived as juvenile and immature sexual behaviour and has the sole aim to convert sexual desires into appropriate (heterosexual) partnered sexual activities (Freud, 1905). Therefore, the sexual act of masturbation became perceived as: “the training ground for heterosexuality” (Laqueur, 2003: 392).
3.6 Sexual revolution
The biologist Kinsey was the first to study sexual practices and motivations of men and women on a large scale in the United States (Kinsey, Pomeroy and Martin, 1948; Kinsey, Pomeroy, Martin and Gebhard, 1953). Within a sample of college educated males and females, he found that 96% of the males (had) masturbated in their lifetime, along with 63% of the females. This had a huge impact, because it goes to show that a large group of people practice masturbation and because it seemed impossible for all these people to be mentally ill, the belief of masturbation causing neurosis and disorders vanished. Over the years, other researchers have found similar data on prevalence and frequency, including a difference in frequency between men and women, which indicates that it remains a frequently expressed sexual act by both men and women (Abramson, 1973; Abramson and Mosher, 1975; Arafat &
Cotton, 1974; Das, 2007; Davidson and Moore, 1994; Greenberg and Archambault, 1973; Robbins, Schick, Reece, Herbenick, Sanders, Dodge and Fortenberry, 2011).
In the 1960’s a new discourse emerged due to influences of the feminist movements and the sexual revolution; people advocated for the right for sexual freedom and the ideas of freely practicing sexuality became a widespread phenomenon. Individuals drew away from church influence and the idea that sex should only happen within marriage and with the aim of reproduction. Masturbation became a form of liberation, of expressing sexual desires and autonomy, instead of being viewed as egoistic, narcissistic, immature, and damaging
relationships (Davidson and Moore, 1994; Gagnon, 1977; Laqueur, 2003). The 1960’s and 1970’s in the Netherlands are known for the years of the sexual revolution. According to Hekma (1990; 1994), this meant a change in ideas and attitudes toward sexuality, rather than a change in sexual behaviour itself. Media platforms such as television, Internet, magazines and newspapers started to address sexual varieties and supported the right to freely express sexuality. This has induced a change in society’s norms and values concerning sexuality and sexual conduct.
Together with a change in ideas on sexuality, the research by Kinsey has changed attitudes on masturbation. It is now considered to be common, normal and healthy sexual behaviour that is practiced by everyone and we might argue that it has changed our attitudes and perceptions on sexuality. However, the psychologist Langston (1975) argues that ideas and attitudes on sexuality have not changed at all since the sexual revolution.
3.7 The civilisation process
The sociologist Elias (2011) explains how throughout history there has been an ongoing process of changes in manners of conduct. Social structural changes (sociogenesis) induced change in personal structural changes (psychogenesis). This is a process of increasing external control to internal control in which individuals learn to control and restraint their urges in a more differentiated and stable manner. This is called the civilisation process (Elias, 2011). The social structural changes entail how from the Middle ages until now, society has changed and still continues to change through division of labour, an increased web of
interdependencies, and a state monopoly on violence. These structural social changes lead to individuals working more together and being more independent on one another, which means that individuals need to account for more people and their own and future actions in daily life. Changes in networks of interdependency (on a macro level) indicates changes in daily
each other creates an increasing web of interdependencies between individuals. This leads to rationalising behaviour through social (external) constraints of restricting rules and norms on manners of conduct, which leads to changes on a psychological and personal level. This refers to internalising rules and norms, and consequently to internal constraints of regulating our emotions and behaviour. This way, the monitoring of behaviour becomes an internal and individual restraint (Elias, 2011).
Elias bases his psychogenesis theory on the personality theory of Freud. According to Freud, our behaviour is determined by three individual personality structures, namely: the id, the ego and the superego (Freud, 1988; van Vliet, 2006; Verstraten, 2006). The id is present at birth, it is the primitive and unconscious structure of the personality and is steered by urges, impulses and lusts. The id is not conscious, so it cannot make a distinction between
appropriate or inappropriate behaviour (Freud, 1988; van Vliet, 2006; Verstraten, 2006). The superego can be perceived as the moralist and idealistic structure. This structure consists of learned and internalised social norms and values and tries to achieve an idealistic form of behaviour based on these norms and values (Freud, 1988; Verstraten, 2006). These norms and values decide which urges are appropriate or inappropriate within particular contexts. This structure is produced due to civilisation. Within modern societies, more and more individuals tend to live closer together. As a consequence, individuals need to account for each other and adapt their behaviour (Elias, 2011; Freud, 1988). The third structure, the ego, is the rational structure and mediates between the id and the superego. This structure manages urges from the id in socially desirable ways (Freud, 1988; Verstraten, 2006:).
The civilisation process has had a lot of implications on ‘animalistic’ urges from the id, such as feelings and urges. Elias calls this a “’civilising’ change of behaviour: the
fluctuations in behaviour and effects don’t disappear, but are moderated (…) in keeping with the social structure” (Elias, 1937 in Calhoun, Gerteis, Moody, Pfaff, Virk, 2012: 503-506). Within the civilising process, sexuality or violence were seen as animalistic urges, therefore, they needed to be “removed behind the scenes of social life” (Elias, 1978 in Scheff, 2003: 249), making it invisible to others. Feelings of shame or guilt can emerge whenever people express particular behaviour that’s not linked to the social norm or moral, such as sexual urges (Elias, 2011). Because norms and values are created by culture, these feelings are socialised and internalised by individuals (van Vliet, 2006: 87-89).
This relates to Gagnon’s term of the sexual script that indicates where, when, what, and with whom sexual conduct is appropriate (1977: 8). So, nudity and sexuality became ‘private’ and due to the fear of feeling ashamed or embarrassed, individuals restrained,
regulated, and controlled their urges and lusts. Therefore, feelings of shame emerge from transgressing these urges that are considered to be forbidden or taboo behaviour (Elias, 2011). Feelings of shame will withhold individuals of breaking social norms (Turner and Stets, 2006).
3.8 Gender
Within this thesis I will focus on the gender theory by West and Zimmerman (1987). They perceive gender as an activity or a role that an individual performs through interaction, either with a “virtual or real presence of others who are presumed to be oriented to its production” (Ibid, 1987: 126). Therefore, it’s designated as a “situated doing” (Ibid, 1987: 126). In social action, every form of behaviour is assessed and considered to be gender-appropriate or gender-inappropriate (Ibid, 1987: 135). Lucal (1999) refers to this performance of gender by describing it as a ‘gender display’ (Goffman, 1976 in Lucal, 1999): “culturally established sets of behaviors, appearances, mannerisms, and other cues that we have learned to associate with members of a particular gender” (1999: 783-784). A ‘display’ indicates that gender is enacted, performed, and presented by individuals. Certain cultural traits and performances are expected to be enacted by women, whereas other cultural traits and performances are
expected to be enacted by men. This leads to the construction of cultural practices that entail properties and characteristics which ‘fit in’ with a particular gender. These cultural practices are then “used to reinforce the ‘essentialness’ of gender” (West and Zimmerman, 1987: 135).
Sociologists Connell and Messerschmidt (2005) explain ‘masculinity’ as a male pattern of behaviour. Masculinity is seen as the hegemonic ideal of ‘manhood’ (Connell and Messerschmidt, 2005). The hegemonic masculine man is a white, hetero- and hypersexual, middle class, aggressive, courageous, authoritative, technical, and risk taking man. His participation in social behaviour and social practices show off these kinds of hegemonic masculinity (Connell, 1987: 186-187). Emphasized femininity is described by Connell (1987) as a pattern that’s given most cultural and ideological support, such as “adaptive [to men’s power], compliance, sociability, empathy, nurturance, fragility, and being sexual receptive” (Connell, 1987: 187-188).
Connell’s theory has a more macro approach, focusing on the patterns of masculinity practices of exerting structural and institutional control over women and other men. However, I will use a micro approach of interactions between individuals by employing the theory of masculinity by Schrock and Schwalbe (2009) in which they define ‘manhood acts’ as “aimed at claiming privilege, eliciting deference, and resisting exploitation” (2009: 281). Manhood
acts demonstrate a masculine self and the dominant gender position. The implications of a manhood act are to validate the performance as masculine. Masculine and feminine practices are perceived as appropriate and acceptable social practices of behaviour that are performed by individuals (Ibid, 2009). In this way, one ‘does gender’ in a masculine or feminine manner.
3.9 Feelings of shame and guilt
A key concept of this thesis is the role of shame or guilt concerning masturbation. Although masturbation is acknowledged by the biologist Kinsey as a common sexual practice, it still appears to be accompanied by shame, guilt, secrecy, and taboo, as is demonstrated by other studies (Abramson, 1973; Arafat and Cotton, 1974; Bensman, Hatfield and Leonidas, n.d.; Davidson and Moore, 1994; Fahs and Frank, 2014; Gagnon, 1977; Greenberg and
Archambault, 1973; Hogarth and Ingham, 2009, Kaestle and Allen, 2011).
The feelings shame and guilt are often interrelated. According to the clinical
psychologists Tangney and Dearing, they’re considered to be “’self-conscious’ and ‘moral’ emotions: self-conscious in that they involve the self-evaluating of the self, and moral in that they presumably play a key role in fostering [what is supposed to be] moral behaviour” (2002: 2). Shame is considered to be “an extremely painful and ugly feeling that has a negative impact on interpersonal behaviour” (Ibid, 2002: 3). Langston (1975) sees guilt as the feeling that emerges because men or women don’t conform to certain social expectations. Not following sexual appropriate scripts means one is challenging social expectations, which might lead to feelings of shame or guilt.
Our sexual scripts are related to the social ideas and beliefs about sexuality and masturbation. While analysing the data, I will try to grasp the normative attitudes towards masturbation, the sexual behaviour of masturbation of students, and the way students experience their masturbation practices.
Chapter 4: Practices of masturbation
4.1 Introduction
The general research question of this study is how masturbation is practiced and perceived by highly educated students. The practice of masturbation might have the form of a sexual script, by perceiving it as less or more appropriate according to what, who, where, when, and why, (Gagnon, 1973; 1977; 1990; Simon and Gagnon, 1986). In this way, masturbation practices might only be appropriate under particular circumstances. This chapter will focus on the start of masturbation, masturbation frequency and the difference in childhood and adolescence, the difference in masturbation frequency between male and female students, describe where, when, and why students masturbate in daily life, and whether or not the relationship status of students influences masturbation practices.
4.2 Start of masturbation
Male and female students described starting to masturbate when they hit puberty, so at age 12 or 13 or when they started high school. Most of them had trouble remembering how or when they first learned about masturbation. The most common remark was: “I just started doing it and it felt nice”. One of the students describes:
It [masturbation] happened very young, in primary school. I don’t remember exactly in which grade I was. Let’s say second grade [groep 4]. At that time, I didn’t know that it was called masturbation. A friend of mine did it and it was nice or something. When I think back to it now, as an adult, I think that it might be weird. (…) Because you have a certain idea… this happened long before I hit puberty, and because of the general idea I have that you start doing it when you hit puberty (Walter, 2016: 1).
This remark tells us that there’s a particular stage in life in which it’s socially acceptable for you to start exploring sexuality through masturbation, namely puberty. Several other students remembered that they started masturbating before puberty, which also led to remarks such as: “I think I was quite young”. This indicates that the social script determines when
masturbation practices are appropriate in relation to age. Although Freud (1905) defines the stage of autoeroticism at the youngest stage in life namely as an infant, this is an idea that’s not generally expressed by students. It seems that it’s not socially expected or acceptable for children to explore their sexuality before puberty, although research has shown that most children do (Arafat and Cotton, 1974; Gagnon, 1977; 1985). Another thing that strikes here is that Walter illustrates how he already masturbated before knowing what it was. Other students
made similar remarks. This relates to script theory, where Gagnon and Simon explain how the social-psychological meaning of sexual events is learned after you already do it (1973: 23). This indicates that students learn which behaviour is considered to be ‘sexual’ and,
additionally, which sexual behaviour is labelled normal, good, and appropriate compared to bad, deviant, and inappropriate (Seidman, 2003).
However, most male students described that they masturbate less frequently compared to during puberty. Jeffrey (2016) illustrates this by saying that masturbation is less ‘needed’ when you’re older: “compared to when I was 14, 15 or 16 years old, I think now I’m doing it less. I think you become more mature or something. It’s no longer necessary.” This relates to the idea of Freud (2005) that masturbation is immature and part of a particular stage in life, namely childhood or puberty. Jeffrey indicates that you’ve to direct your sexual desires towards partnered sexual activities when you’re older. Thus, the idea that adolescent sexual behaviour is directed at socio-sexual contacts (Freud, 2005; Laqueur, 2003), seems to continue to exist.
4.3 Masturbation frequency
Male students explain that the frequency of masturbation decreased because they started having partnered sex. Opposed to male students’ experiences, for female students the frequency of masturbation increased with age. According to the psychologist Abramson (1973) this is because older female students develop a more positive attitude regarding sexuality due to sexual experiences. Consequently, this makes up for a “disposition to use masturbation as a form of sexual outlet [that] signifies a positive interest and attitude toward a wide range of expressions of sexuality” (Abramson, 1973: 140). This implies that women’s sexual behaviour is strongly associated with their sexual attitude. Sociologists Arafat and Cotton describe a similar research result by stating that increased openness in sexuality can change behaviour and perceptions of men and women, but emphasise that this applies more to women than to men (1974: 293). This phenomenon might be due to the fact that in general, men are expected to be sexual beings and women are not (Clark and Wiederman, 2000). This issue will be further addressed in the next paragraph.
Additionally, I have asked students about their current frequency of masturbation. Within the interviews, female students reported that they masturbated two to four times a week, whereas male students reported four to seven times a week or more. The survey results show similar results of masturbation frequency; here there’s also a discrepancy to be found between male and female students. However, the difference in frequency between male and
female students is much higher opposed to the difference within the interviews. The results from the survey show that most male students masturbate three or more times a week,
whereas most female students participate one to two times a week, as is shown in bar graph 1.
Bar graph 1. Masturbation frequency of the last 12 months among male students in percentages.
It’s remarkable to see that there are no male students at all who masturbate once a month or less, opposed to 16% of female students in bar graph 2. Within bar graph 2 we see a larger range of masturbation frequency of female students. A small percentage of female students reported masturbating once, namely 0,40% which translates to 1 female student.
Bar graph 2. Masturbation frequency of the last 12 months among female students in percentages.
Bar graph 3 shows the masturbation frequency of male and female students compared to each other. Male students masturbate 77% more daily than female students. On the
contrary, there are no male students who masturbate less than once a month, as opposed to 16% of female students, as we can see in bar graph 2. Although it’s a low percentage, it’s still 100% more than male students, as seen in bar graph 3. Within bar graph 3, I have considered
27% 41% 23% 8% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Daily < 3 Week 1-2 Week > 1 Week
Male students n=99
3% 19% 33% 28% 16% 0.40% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Daily < 3 Week 1-2 Week > 1 Week > 1 Month OnceFemale students n=265
the one female student who masturbated once an outlier, because it gives the data a distorted view. Therefore, I have removed her data from bar graph 3.
Bar graph 3. Masturbation frequency of the last 12 months among male and female students in percentages.
The difference in masturbation frequency between the interviews and the survey results may be due to the fact that students who participated in an interview about masturbation practices and ideas have a more open attitude towards sexuality. An open attitude can correlate with being more sexually active, which means I possibly talked to a specific group of female students who have a positive attitude about their own sexual feelings and consequently masturbate more.
4.4 Gender
The report of a higher frequency by male students can be due to several reasons. By ‘acting out’ or ‘performing’ sexual behaviour that fits one’s gender, one complies with a social script. Because of the relation between masculinity and hyper sexuality, men are presumed to be more ‘naturally into sex’ than women. This ‘innate’ or ‘natural’ characteristic of being a man relates to having a high sex drive (Baumeister et al, 2001; Fahs and Frank, 2014; Gagnon, 1977; 1990; Laumann and Gagnon, 1995; Oliver and Hyde, 1993; Peplau, 2003; Waterink, 2014). Sociologists Laumann and Gagnon relate sex drive to “felt states of desire which appear (…) to be coming from inside (…), from a felt state of need” (1995: 187). It’s not clear what they mean by this feeling of ‘desire’. As described above, this research has also found a difference in masturbation frequency between male and female students. When asked what students meant by ‘desires’ or ‘urges’ they said that it related to feeling ‘horny’.
77% 45% 21% 10% 0% 23% 55% 79% 90% 100% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Daily < 3 Week 1-2 Week > 1 Week > 1 Month
Masturbation frequency
Male students n=99 Female students n=264
The male social script emphasises hyper- and heterosexuality as key features of masculinity (Allen, 2003; Bem, 1981; McCabe, Tanner and Heiman, 2010; Schrock and Schwalbe, 2009). Hence, within the sexual script for men, it’s more expected and socially appropriate for men to masturbate, which may lead to men over reporting and women under reporting
masturbation frequency in order to conform to social norms (Petersen and Hyde, 2010; Robbins et al, 2011). This will be further addressed in the next chapter on social norms regarding masturbation and in chapter seven on sexual autonomy.
4.5 Having a relationship
Having a relationship was one of the reasons not to masturbate listed by male and female students. Lucas explains how having a relationship strongly influences his masturbation practices:
I once talked about it with my girlfriend, and told her, hey, I still masturbate sometimes, and she thinks that’s very weird. Because she thinks, you’re together, so you don’t have to masturbate. You don’t need to be turned on by pornographic images. So I think that’s one of the reasons why I masturbate less (Lucas, 2016: 6).
The example of Lucas strongly illustrates the appropriate sexual script within a relationship. According to the historian and sexologist Laqueur, masturbation is considered to be wrong “because it fails to integrate sexuality into the service of love” (2003: 395) which, according to Lucas’ girlfriend, is where his sexual behaviour should be aimed at. Other male students also reported that watching porn and masturbating to it caused problems within previous relationships. This resulted in fights and eventually led to insecurities; some students even started questioning the normality of their own sexuality, such as Julian: “I’ve doubted myself for a long time, whether I was oversexed or something” (2016: 13). Julian’s comment
indicates that masturbation is considered inappropriate while being in a relationship (Clark and Wiederman, 2000: 134).
4.6 Place of masturbation
Overall, male and female students masturbated in the same place: in their own bedrooms, in bed. Some students masturbated in the shower. Students mostly explained that they
masturbated in bed because it of comfort, because that’s where they simmer down or because that’s where they have privacy. Students stated that they masturbate in the evening, at night or
in the morning because then they’re in bed. Another reason for masturbating in bed was because it helped students to fall asleep.
The most common remark made by students is that masturbation is private and only happens when you’re alone. This relates to Elias’ theory about the civilisation process, which characterises a more intensive control and constraint of human urges. As a result, the personal and affective parts of life are moved to the private sphere, or behind closed doors (Elias, 2011). Students described masturbating in public as something that’s ‘not done’. Some even started laughing just thinking of the idea of masturbating in a public space, implying that it’s ridiculous to even think about it.
Here we can see that practices and ideas have an overlap: students consider
masturbation as private and something you do alone, therefore they masturbate alone in bed or in the shower, behind closed doors. Thus, masturbation is perceived as socially unaccepted behaviour in public spheres or within the presence of others. This complies to the sexual script of where, when, and how masturbation is considered to be an appropriate sexual act (Gagnon, 1977).
4.7 Masturbation as part of partnered sex
Although all students express a desire to be alone in order to masturbate, there are several students who have masturbated in front of others. However, students designate this as ‘part of partnered sex’, and therefore label it as something completely different to solitary sex:
I think masturbating in front of someone else is part of [partnered] sex. So I consider it to be very different from masturbating, although it’s the same movement and the same action, I think it’s part of our sexual ritual, instead of my personal masturbation ritual (Tim, 2016: 5).
The difference in the way students report this is remarkable. On the one hand masturbation has been defined by students as something private and personal which is done completely alone; even the thought of doing it in a more public sphere was laughable. On the other hand, several students describe how they have masturbated in front of their sexual partner. Yet some students do mention that it made them or their partner feel uncomfortable or awkward. Others say that this kind of apprehensiveness can make partnered sex more exciting because of the increase in sexual tension. Some male students say they masturbate during partnered sex for practical reasons, for example in order to stay hard. Others masturbate because they like to climax over a partner’s face.
Female students said they saw masturbation as part of foreplay or some sort of ‘after play’, in which they masturbated to a climax because the climax didn’t happen during sex. Tess describes how masturbating during sex can even be a game of power:
It’s something very personal. You become an object and he doesn’t do anything for you. And then you just lie there as a woman. On the one hand it’s kind of like a game of power, because you know you’re turning him on and he’s not allowed to touch you. But on the other hand you’re also a n object… it’s very interesting (Tess, 2016: 6).
Tess describes how she feels like an object and a subject at the same time, which
consequently gives her a feeling of power. By saying that ‘he doesn’t do anything for you’, she refers to the fact that she’s the one who induces sexual pleasure to herself. Tess may feel as an object because she’s masturbating for the pleasure of her male sexual partner. Women feeling or acting as an object to please men, is explained by the philosopher Young as:
An essential part of the situation of being a woman is that of living the ever present possibility that one will be gazed upon as a mere body, as shape and flesh that presents itself as the potential object of another subject's intentions and manipulations, rather than as a living manifestation of action and intention (Young, 1980: 154).
According to Young (1980), women are more likely than men to view themselves as an object and seeing themselves through the eyes of others as an object. This is part of the patriarchal ‘male gaze’ which means that women feel as if they have to be constantly aware of their appearance and looks, in order to be feminine and make men happy (Holland, Ramazanoglu, Sharpe, Thomson, 1998). However, Tess also describes that she’s the one who can decide what she does to her body, if she speeds up or slows down, if she stops or if she comes to a climax. This makes her feel in control.
4.8 Motives for masturbation
Tools for masturbation, such as sex toys or pornographic material, also determine the location of masturbation. Almost all the male students designated the use of pornographic materials for masturbation and most of the female students also reported watching porn while
masturbating. Yet solely female students expressed using sex toys, such as a vibrator or a dildo for masturbation.
